You are however quite right that there are predicted to be problems maintaining stable neutral atoms, as opposed to ions, at some theoretical point. I did not know this before, so thanks very much for drawing it to my attention.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

I am no scientist as we know but wouldnt an older universe replace i flation for example or perhaps the problem inflation sort to sol e was not there.. Heck all I can do is wonder. It wouldnt be starting from scracth at the very least you would be working back from CMBR.

Not so fast. My speculation does not mean I reject our model.
I read someplace that one should be able to entertain all ideas and I take that to mean my own ideas as well.
I can think of steady state I like it very much but well its no longer preferred.

Oh to be able to stand back and see it like a movie to watch and understa d everything as you look.

Alex

Click to expand...

Of course, you are not rejecting. You feel that something more shd come.

I think apart from normal objections around inflation, it has one more major issue which needs addressing . The theory indirectly accepts that the smallest quanta of time is Planck's time, even though there is no basis for this. What if smallest quantum of time is 10°-34 seconds not 10°-43 seconds?

We dont know how big the Universe may be but just trying to imagine that the Observable Universe could have grown from something very small to at least a minimum size of approx 100 billion light years dia. seems beyond belief, to me. And it seems the Universe is much much larger than a dia of 100 billion light years possibly infinite. I cant see how one can double finite to become infinite so if infinite would that fact rule out inflation.

Click to expand...

My bold.
Alex, I'm not too sure if I'm understanding you here, are you saying you can't see how something finite in size can go to infinite in size? Is that right? As I understand it...
You may already know, The state of the maths when reaching or nearing time zero for our observable universe was suggesting infinite energy density .i.e. The maths reach a singularity. That's doesn't mean a single point in space, it means everywhere in space. i.e. The big bang singularity is not a point singularity like that of a black hole.

The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point.

Thank you for trying to explain things.
I am confused I tbought it grew from something small at least.

Click to expand...

Alex, did you see the link.
It maybe convenient to think of an infinite size universe, and that every point in that universe is the centre of an observable universe. (Our observable universe is just one place).Then, as the expansion is run backwards the points get closer together (point density increases) but there is still an infinite area of points. In other words, the whole infinite universe has an energy density at or near infinite at every point in it. i.e. The condition everywhere in that infinite universe is that of infinite energy density at time zero or nearing zero.
Edited. After reading Exchemist's post below. Took out the word smaller.

.....The condition everywhere in that infinite universe is that of infinite energy density at time zero or nearing zero...

I am confused here, I do not think we had infinite universe at t = 0 with infinite density everywhere in that infinite universe. This is going towards multiverse. There is a single set of equations, back trace it to t=0, that t=0 is conceptualized as temporal point and spacetime evolved afterwards. So these set of equations do not give you infinite universe with everywhere conditions of infinite density.

2. In weak field the GR reduces to Newtonian, so does the maths automatically lead to speed of gravity as infinite from c?

3. If we ignore this speed part, and add couple of suitable correction terms in Newtonian, would we not get an amended Newtonian sufficient to explain all observation as explained by GR? I am not talking about MOND.

Sorry for confusing you. I will guess what your confused about...I'm not talking here about the rapid inflation period (the link I gave does not relate to this rapid inflation period).

The whole of an infinite universe can be said to start at time= zero. Then it starts expanding everywhere. Whether there are different rates of expansion in different parts is another story (Multiverse). The point to remember is that our observable universe is just a small part of of this infinite universe. Every point in this infinite universe can be considered to be at the centre of its own observable universe.
If the expansion rate is the same throughout the infinite universe, then you find the energy density increases to infinite, or near that, everywhere as the expansion is run backwards to time zero.
Now, by my reckoning Alex, you are in bed (04.00 a.m). Sweet dreams.